MURALI A/L MANISAGERAN 1. ) JURUMART SDN BHD 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KERJA RAYA NEGERI SELANGOR 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

MURALI A/L MANISAGERAN 1. ) JURUMART SDN BHD 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KERJA RAYA NEGERI SELANGOR 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

Plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities the existence of the pothole at the material location, the identity of the party responsible for maintenance or a causal breach by the 1st defendant; further, the 2nd and 3rd defendants enjoy statutory protection under s7 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

Citation
BL-12B-15-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Murali A/L Manisageran; 1st Defendant/respondent: Jurumart Sdn Bhd; 2nd and 3rd Defendants/respondents: Pengarah Jabatan Kerja Raya Negeri Selangor; Kerajaan Negeri Selangor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 May 2023
Case Number
BL-12B-15-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (negligence/tort) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Government Proceedings Act S7, Duty of Care for Road Maintenance, Contractual Indemnity, Evidence Act S101 and S114(g)
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Administrative Law Contract Negligence Government Proceedings Act S7 Duty of Care for Road Maintenance Contractual Indemnity Evidence Act S101 and S114(g)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murali A/L Manisageran

Appellant/plaintiff

Jurumart Sdn Bhd

1st Defendant/respondent

Pengarah Jabatan Kerja Raya Negeri Selangor; Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

2nd and 3rd Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (negligence/tort) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were negligent in failing to maintain the road causing plaintiff’s accident
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant was the party responsible for maintenance of the road
  3. 3 Whether sections 7(1)-(3) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 shield the 2nd and 3rd defendants from liability

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities the existence of the pothole at the material location, the identity of the party responsible for maintenance or a causal breach by the 1st defendant; further, the 2nd and 3rd defendants enjoy statutory protection under s7 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents